On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 12:22 AM Richard Fontana <richard.font...@opensource.org> wrote:
> I suggest we continue to think of the International category as > encompassing licenses "targeting specific languages and > jurisdictions", to use Mike's phrasing from 2015, rather than the > typical approach we see in open source licensing of having a single > English-language text that is largely perceived by the community, > correctly or not, as being jurisdiction-neutral in design or > orientation. We should think of "specific languages and jurisdictions" > as meaning "specific languages not limited solely to English"; an > International license might have an English language version as well > as a version in one or more other languages, or it might not have an > official English version at all. Given this understanding, EUPL 1.2 as > well as CeCILL 2.1 should both be reclassified as "International". Since there was no objection to this proposed recharacterization of the "International" license category, I have gone ahead and put EUPL 1.2 and CeCILL 2.1 in this category on the OSI website (https://opensource.org/licenses/category). Richard _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
